tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC December 5, 2017 7:00am-8:00am PST
that. >> wraps us up this hour. i'm stephanie ruhle. see you at 11:00. now to my friend, hallie jackson. and the man accused of terrible things is playing out in the political world in a good way. one man is back in good republican graces with his colleagues. and the other is headed for a congressional exit, but not as quickly as his democratic associates would like. in alabama where the rnc is pumping cash back into roy moore's campaign. we'll get a snapshot of the race with a week to go with one of the year's most controversial political villains headed to town to help. then behind me on the hill in 15 minutes we'll find out for sure in the dean is departing. the nation's longest serving
congressman, john yonkconyers, resign after allegations of sexual harassment surface. and we are on shutdown watch with an update from paul ryan set to happen any minute. he's probably ready to talk about how to keep the lights back on. and we are ready to talk about everything in the world of politics today. and we'll start in alabama with gabe gutierrez in fairhope. a lot of new developments overnight. not just on who is helping roy moore, but what he's now saying about one of his accusers. >> reporter: hi, hallie. good morning. roy moore's campaign firing back at "the washington post" after the paper published what it calls new evidence from one of the women who came forward publicly very early on, talking to "the washington post." and she said she had dated roy moore decades ago when she was 17 and he was in his 30s. she offered new evidence to "the washington post," a signed card that she says was signed by roy moore. roy moore's campaign firing back saying "the washington post" is
reaching. and this is a question, hallie, we have heard for the last several days, moore repeatedly insisted he didn't know the women despite the earlier interview with sean hannity saying he knew a few of them. now roy moore's campaign said when he referred to not knowing the women, he referred to those specifically that had accused him of sexual assault. among them, leigh corfman who said she was fondled by moore when she was 14 years old. think about what the surrogates just told cnn this morning. take a listen. >> we need to make it clear that there's a group of non-accuser that is have not accused the judge of any sexual misconduct or anything illegal. >> reporter: so here in alabama, the rnc as you mentioned, hallie, now coming back into the state after two weeks ago, yanking all the resources from alabama. we are noticing a bit of a shift here on the ground, the recent average polling here as roy moore inching ahead of 2.6
percentage points according to a recent poll. the nbc news poll had him up by six points. most astonishing, 71% of republican voters here in alabama do not believe the allegations against roy moore that may be part of the reason the rnc decided, look, we need to throw some more resources at this race. as you know, mitch mcconnell over the weekend backed off his previous comments where he said moore should step down. now he's saying, look, it is up to voters in alabama. orrin hatch coming out to say, look, these are decades old allegations and it should be up to the voters in alabama. and as you know, steve bannon, planning a rally here for roy moore in fairhope later on tonight and then on friday. even though the white house has come out to say roy moore is not going to campaign in alabama, but president trump, of course, after offering his full endorsement, he plans to campaign, technically, not in alabama, but just over the state line in pensacola, which just happens to be part of the mobile
media market. it just happens to be four days before the special election. hallie? >> gabe, there's a lot to talk about. thank you for that reporting including the comment from the person representing roy moore that there are a lot of nonaccusers that have accused him of nothing. we'll get to that in a second, but we also want to talk about what is set to happen in about 12 minutes here. and an announcement from john conyers is expected to come on detroit radio. he's giving an interview after coming under house leadership to resign after claims that he denied of sexual"the new york t finish out his term but no more. garrett haake is on the hill behind me. listen, democrats have not minced words the last few days. every member of leadership said they want conyers to step down. talk about this decision playing out on the hill. >> reporter: not well, hallie. that's the short answer. every member of leadership on the democratic side, the speaker of the house and a number of other members, essentially, anyone you can get in front of
the camera said it is time for john conyers to step aside. the prospect of a promise not to run for office in the future is not going to satisfy many people up here. again, it allows him to continue to draw a congressional paycheck for another year. taxpayer paycheck. it allows him to continue to work up here and continue to essentially be a distraction and be a splinter in the sexual harassment and the sexual propiety that some say are forfeited by not condemning his actions sooner. and the promise to not run again is worthwhile in this town where often people run for election on this specific promise they will only do it for a certain number of terms and back away. john conyers name is a big name in politics. and if he changes his mind six months from now, what does that leave folks with? i don't think this will do if the announcement is as reported. i don't think this will do much
to relieve that pressure for him to step aside. >> garrett, quickly, we'll show for sure in ten minutes, but we still haven't heard from conyers himself. until conyers makes the decision himself, we can't speculate. one of his relatives is speaking to "the new york times" and saying we think he's going to end up resigning at the end of his term, right? >> reporter: right. and it's a grand nephew who, by the way, in that new york times story says he may seek the seat himself, not a great look for democrats to have it look like this has been sort of neptisticly handed down like a royal title. so again, i don't think anything that we're going to see short of a resignation on the spot in this interview today is going to be enough to satisfy democrats and republicans who want to see conyers step down for the good of the institution. >> garrett, another busy morning for you. i'll ask you to come back when we hear more from conyers and wait for paul ryans press
conference as well. we'll bring in julie bakowitz from the wall street journal. garrett has been talking to conyers and asking republicans about roy moore. republicans, frankly, don't seem to want to be speaking very loudly about moore. and i want to play you a little bit about what rand paul has had to say to garrett or not say to garrett overnight. watch. >> do you still support roy moore, sir? we have been trying to get an answer out of your office for quite a while, sir. do you still support roy moore? >> thanks, guys. >> reporter: senator, why is this such a hard question? do you still support roy moore? >> i'm not answering that right now, thank you. >> there's one part of the republican silence and no comment saying a lot. and there's another part of this of the rnc not only not being silent but actively vocally coming out to pump cash intomore's campaign. >> there's a palpable shift, certainly n the direction of roy moore. we have seen the president fully
endorse him in vent days. the rnc is going back in on a financial basis. senator mcconnell hasn't specifically retracted any of his previous statements, but he's not out there saying that roy moore should not be in this position. >> let the voters decide. it was a softer pedal. >> and senator hatch defended president trump's decision to reendorse him to say he's the republican and all we've got. so there's a real shift there after allegations arose that he should step down. >> we have been reporting on this and they spent a lot of time hammering the democratic members of congress to return nominations for hard voovey weinstein. why is this different? >> both parties concluded that voters are not paying attention to this issue. >> but that's not true, they are paying attention to this issue. >> or they are willing to overlook it to play to party politics. >> i don't know if they are overlooking it or calling -- you look at voters in alabama, they
say, it is not real, fake news. you had a spokesperson out on cnn this morning saying effectively, not answering the question saying we don't believe he's accused, but implying all the women are lying. >> well, with both parties tangled up in their own issues with different members accused of sexual harassment, it really gives the republican party an opportunity to go back in and sort of solve this riddle with having the president feel one way and then the party retreating. it just has been an awkward look for the past couple of weeks to have them on different pages. >> but let me ask you this, i think back to september when on this show we talked about roy moore before he sexually harassed or had the allegations for other controversies he's had. this is somebody who has said he believes part of the u.s. are under sharia law. homosexual conduct should be illegal. 9/11 was god punishing u.s. perverseness. and said muslims shouldn't sit in congress and called it a false religion. and he believes president obama
was not born in the u.s. at one point. there's more to this than the sexual harassment and sexual misconduct allegations against roy moore. at what point will republicans have to answer for him? when he's sitting in the senate if he wins? >> there was a serious argument that he was not qualified to take the job before the allegations came out. >> people were running in the hallways asking members of congress before all this. >> right. but the tribal tendency to win the seat, to defeat your opponent, is really powerful. >> is there any proof? >> 71% of republicans don't believe the allegations in alabama. >> is there proof that roy moore will vote with mitch mcconnell on everything and give him the green light? he was against the graham/cassidy moves. is he a rubber stamp for the republicans? >> he's a disrupter and running anti-mcconnell. if he comes to vote with the party, that would be problematic. he'll use the tax bill as a causal against his opponent doug jones. >> i want to touch on conyers
here. there's rumor that he's going to retire at the end of the year. garrett laid out how that will not be good enough for democratic leadership here. but julia, is there anything they can do? >> no. this is a stark dpexample of ho the sexual assault claims that are percolating all throughout society have a different feel when it comes to politics, because voters are ultimately these people's bosses. it is not a person that can be fired by a ceo. >> what is interesting when you look at this broadly is the question of who stays and who goes. and there's been a lot of discussion around this, rightfully so in recent days. john conyers is going to leave, al franken is not, and essentially roy moore will be a member of the senate. there is a moment of reck anything and grabmeppling on capitol hill in the world of politics on who remains, when do voters get a say and who needs to be forced out?
>> there are no clear dell kn deleanations on what is happening here. a lot of men need to rethink how we treat this. and where we come out on the other side is instructive, but we are not there yet. >> we are not close to being done with this show. i'm going to ask you to stick around as we are waiting to hear from congressman john conyers and hear from house speaker paul ryan in his news conference set to take questions. and we are waiting to see the president meeting with members of the senate, republican members over at the white house. and meanwhile, there's a split-in strategy between the president's inside council and outside lawyers when it comes to questions of obstruction. we have new nbc news reporting on what this means for the russian investigation after the break. capital one quicksilver card. and how do you feel? [sighs] like a burden's been lifted. those other cards made you sign up for bonus cash back.
then they change categories on you every few months. then you had to keep signing up! you...deserve...better. now get out there and keep earning that 1.5% cash back on every purchase everywhere. thanks, doc. i'm not a doctor. what? [whispers] time to go. what's in your wallet? this ♪s electricity. this is a power plant.
the president, about questions over obstruction of justice and their legal strategy moving forward. the president's personal lawyer john dowd says it can't happen, no president can really obstruct justice. but the white house lawyer ty cobb says, no, we are not going to use that defense, that's a bit much. peter alexander is live at the white house. it's another day of fallout from the tweet over the weekend to raise real questions about potential obstruction by the president. >> reporter: yeah, hallie, to be clear, the white house lawyer ty cobb argued from the start, day one, that the president did not wrong. there will be no, there's no concern, the reason for concern that this investigation is going to wrap up shortly after the start of the new year. but what is significant here is that this legal debate within the president's team really is spilling out. after that tweet where mr. trump said he fired flynn, michael flynn, the former national security adviser, because he lied to the vice president and the fbi. it was that statement that deepened the suspicions of obstruction of justice. so you have the president's personal lawyer, a man by the
name of john dowd, arguing a president cannot obstruct justice because in his words he's the country's chief law enforcement officer under the constitution's article 2 and that he has every right to express his view of any case. but then overnight we heard from the white house, ty cobb again, distancing himself from that argument telling nbc news the following. i expect a fact based exoneration that does not require that level of legal analysis. there is no strategy of which i'm aware to rely boldly on the proclamation that obstruction is always impossible with regard to a president. hallie? >> peter, there's also new developments here on paul manafort, right? and some new information about what lawyers are saying about that case. walk us through. >> reporter: yeah, that is new this morning. the federal judge who was overseeing the manafort cases ordered paul manafort to show cause as to why he hasn't violated a court-imposed gag order, basically the judge wants manafort to explain the supposed
op-ed that manafort wrote and why that would not have violated the judge's order from earlier in november. they showed the court documents as late as last week. after manafort teamed up to write the op-ed on ukraine. there was the quote we had up on the screen. the documents showed manafort was working on the draft with a long-time russian colleague of his who is currently based in russia and assessed to have ties to a russian intelligence service. it appears the suspicion is that manafort was writing something to reflect well on himself. >> right. and recently, too, peter, right? this all happened in recent weeks. >> reporter: exactly. this happened barely a week ago, it was just last thursday. and remember it was a month ago that than momanafort walked int courthouse. >> i want to bring in mat miller, former chief spokesman
for the justice department. matt, we'll start with you and where peter left off on the questions of paul manafort. we talked a bit during the break about this and said, how did bob mueller know? >> it's bizarre that paul manafort would be violating a court gag ord earn talking about this case and doing so in con stillation with the russian he's tied to and worked with before. how did bob mueller know about this? the op-ed was not public. they were passing drafts back and forth over e-mail. it would suggest to me that manafort or the person he was doing the op-ed with remains under government surveillance. >> a sign that the special counsel's tentacles are far deeper and furtherer into this thing than people expected. >> yeah. >> when you look at what else is happening when it comes to the russian investigation, peter talked a little bit about these different strategies from the
lawyers on the obstruction question. the one lawyer ty cobb saying, we are not arguing the president obstructed justice. john dowd is making an argument. what do you think of that? >> it is a political and public relations disaster to make this argument. now that the president cannot obstruct justice. one, you're making an argument that the president is like a king above the law. that doesn't sound great for the white house. but more importantly, you only make that argue when you're seeding the fact that based on the president's behavior he did obstruct justice. yes, his actions may seem like he obstructed justice, but that looks like a political statement. i don't read into ty cobb's argument. you watch closely, if the special counsel does move against him at some point in obstruction of justice, they are back in the legal argument that he's the chief law enforcement officer. his actions can't constitute. >> one of the friends of the show was out on axios this morning with an interesting and
important point to make on this. that i have heard reflected in my conversations with sources in and around washington. allen writes, this part of the plan has been in full motion for many months. the trump fog machine blows daily. the idea is to take the prosecutor, the fbi, the process, the media, the democrats, the critics, trump is playing not for court per se, but for the court of public opinion and more importantly the court of house republican opinion. and it seems to me, mike allen, that's what this all basically comes down to. how does this play with the public and with the republican colleagues over on capitol hill right now? >> he's certainly succeeding on that front. not only with the republican conference in the house and a large part of the senate, but with the republican base. about 80% of them still approve of the president. and these are the house republicans and senate republicans have to answer to at the end of the day. whatever bob mueller finds in the legal aspect, there's going to be ultimately a political decision made by the leaders of congress who happen to be republicans now and, of course, what their base thinks about
this is going to influence that. >> there's also another twist to this with reuters saying that bob mueller subpoenaed deutsche bank to look at the accounts of the president and his family. we reached out and the bank always cooperates with investigating authorities in all countries. there was a german paper that originally reported this. but remember what the president said of "the times" in july, it would be overstepping if mueller got into his finances here, julie. >> "the wall street journal" is also reporting that this morning. it is an interesting new twist on the overall investigation. and really could sort of explain some of the eruption of comments that we're hearing from the white house and from the president, in particular, because like you said, he has made it clear in the past that he considering that a red line in the investigation. and as they get information that the red line potentially has been crossed, it will be a really interesting thing to see how they respond. >> but this falls into the
actions that this is within the scope of his investigation. >> it absolutely does. look, we can draw one conclusion from this recent subpoena. because remember the reports happened over the last couple of weeks. and bob mueller is nowhere near done with this investigation. and the implications for that are important. because if you go back to the spring, the president was actively way toing to thwart and end this investigation by asking the people in the intelligence community to intervene with it, and his lawyers got him to back off on that. i think by telling him, we think the investigation will be over by the end of the year or over by january. it is very clear that's not the case. what happens when the president realizes his lawyers are wrong, that the investigation is not over, and bob mueller is looking closely at his finances. >> at his money. >> we may see a huge eruption, not just on twitter, but what he does to try to thwart or close down the investigation. >> a lot to talk about from the white house briefing that we'll be at this afternoon. now to breaking news here, garrett haake is on capitol
hill. we have been talking about john conyers. the congressman accused of sexual harassment. he's now said he will be endorsing his son to replace him. garrett, this is all happening literally as we speak. what is the news? >> caller: literally as we speak, he's saying he will resign. conyers saying he will resign. sorry, we are doing four things at once here. he will step down and he's endorsing his son to take the seat. so democrats i think will be pleased to hear that conyers has gotten the message to resign at this point. but again, the look of endorsing his son of trying to choose a successor, not a great way to go out. of course, it won't be him who gets to make the choice. it will be the voters in southeastern michigan. but again, democrats getting some of what they wanted here today. senator, do you want to comment on this? >> we are watching you on tv here. >> reporter: what are your thoughts on congressman conyers
saying we'll step down. >> this is a time where we should not be focusing on conyers doing the right thing. but we should focus on why millions of americans are going through sexual harassment. it is important to hold them accountable. people in media and everybody. right now there are people who suffered harassment literally in restaurants and in their workplaces and their factories, we've got to change a culture here. and again, we want to make sure our leadership in washington is setting the standard, but all of us have to take responsibility for changing the culture. >> reporter: thank you, senator. so a quick correction, retiring, conyers says, not resigning. announcing his retirement, not his resignation. >> this is effective essentially as the close of business. as you point out, a little bit
of a distinction without a lot of teeth behind it. >> reporter: a face-saving measure, essentially. >> that's interesting. garrett, go back to listen to the interview, thank you. john conyers says he's in the process of putting his retirement plans together. we'll have more on that, he's endorsing his son to take his seat. this is, frankly, not altogether surprising that conyers is talking about stepping away from congress. the timing is what is interesting about this. i'm back with sahil, julie, matt is back at the table due to breaking news. i want to get your reaction what we are hearing from garrett. >> that was a classic moment of the senator ducking out of the doorway there. i think this as we discussed earlier today, this is going to sit well with leadership, democratic leadership. they were hoping for this type of a move on conyers part. with voters electing people,
there's not a lot of recourse that fellow democrats have when it comes to someone in the ranks who they would prefer to see leave the chamber. >> unlike people in news or entertainment or anywhere else, voters don't have the option to fire people immediately. which is why conyers has the option. but i agree with garrett, it doesn't look good for democrats when conyers is endorsing his son. that's not what the democratic party needs right now. that seat is very safe. he's 88 years old and been in congress since 1965. that seat leans democratic by 32 percentage points. it's not in doubt. i think it is certainly good news. it's an albatross off nancy pelosi ea pelosi's neck. >> we heard the reaction from senator booker there in the hallway. i would be surprised if we don't hear from speaker paul ryan when he holds his news conference in the next couple of minutes on the show. and the reaction from nancy
pelosi as well. she came under fire for not coming out on "meet the press" and demanding conyers steps down immediately. she ultimately came to that position, but her reaction is likely to be one of relief at this point, i would imagine. >> absolutely. they have been pretty clear about asking for this, at willest in the past couple of days. like you said, early reaction was a little muddled and confusing to see democratic leaders who have been focused on roy moore and the accusations against him, try to sort of wind their way through how to, not necessarily endorse conyers, but give him a little more space. and then, again, in more recent days, have been clearer about what they would like to see happen to him. >> what are the implications with conyers and what does this speak to boldly with the moment happening on capitol hill where you have multiple members accused of sexual harassment, conyers, the first among them,
to leave. >> well, the immediate impact is that he's been succeeded as the top democrat on the judiciary committee by gerald nadler, a congressman from new york city, and one of his first acts was to call on the judiciary committee to investigate president trump for obstruction of justice after the tweet about michael flynn and then suggesting that he lied to the fbi. the whole conversation about who wrote it, the lawyer and how significant is that. beyond that in terms of a policy standpoint, it is hard to see much of a huge immediate impact. he's still going to be there, still voting, and democrats are still in the minority. not a lot of power. >> i want to play you a little bit of what congressman conyers had to say moments ago. listen. >> i am retiring today. and i want everyone to know how much i appreciate the support, the incredible undiminished supportive received over the years from my supporters, not
only in my district, but across the country as well. >> congressman conyers to give you a little background is apparently calling in to the detroit radio program from an undisclosed hospital in detroit. he is with his attorney, arnold reid, making that phone call to announce what you just herald, that he is retiring today. garrett haake got reaction instantly from corey booker who talked about the broader picture here. we are waiting to hear from house speaker paul ryan and waiting to hear from nancy pelosi as well and potentially chuck schumer. and this is a real moment right now for democrats. >> and also for republicans, because i'm really curious to hear what house speaker ryan has to say in the context of the republican national committee just last night saying that they would go back in and help roy moore. so there's just a really sort of awkward space for both parties at this point. >> yes, it's hard to be in the position if you are a republican leader, if you are speaker ryan, having called on conyers to step
down and not speak out on what is happening in your party. democrats have that party, too. democrats want the moral high ground on this and want to talk about roy moore and president trump's accusers and want to be the progressive party on these sorts of issues but can't make excuses for their own. we saw that with leader pelosi's evolution. >> we are going to be watching that. coming up after the break, watching paul ryan and what he has to say about this. and also watching what he has to say about the scramble to avoid a shutdown this week in the news overload on this tuesday morning. we'll be right back. (♪) (♪) it all starts with a wish. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down
and a complementary first months payment. (avo) but you also have a higher risk of heart attack or stroke. non-insulin victoza® lowers a1c, and now reduces cardiovascular risk. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill. (avo) and for people with type 2 diabetes treating cardiovascular disease, victoza® is now approved to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (avo) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing.
serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. ask your doctor about victoza®. and i am a senior public safety my namspecialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies.
everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other people's lives. together, we're building a better california.
so we're back and talking about the president later on at the white house having lunch with senate republicans, just three days before funding for the government is supposed to run out. yes, we are on shutdown watch. and we are also watching the final tax reform bill kind of getting on its way to being hammered out. but not without last-minute drama on the house floor. msnbc's garrett haake who deserves a raise is talking about the third or fourth headline coming out of this day. so garrett, i know you're watching what is happening with john conyers and what is happening with the race to avoid some kind of government shutdown. drama overnight with house republicans talking like they are going to hold up a vote. >> reporter: yeah, the conservative freedom caucus essentially pumped the brakes last night and gave house leadership a little bit of a
scare they weren't going to support this vote to go to a conference on the tax bill. they did this on a subject that is mostly unrelated. what they are going to do to keep the government open beyond friday. so for people who are not keeping score at home, the government essentially runs out of spending money on friday. there are deems in the works in discussion to extend funding another couple of weeks in the hopes of getting a deal. leadership wanted a deal that went all the way to december 22nd, essentially right before christmas. the freedom caucus folks argued doing this the week before christmas, a, gives democrats the upper hand politically, and b, plays games with the economy during what is a very important part of the year in terms of spending and things like that in the u.s. economy. they want to see this go out a little bit further down the road. this is still very much an open debate. remember, the house side of this is only one piece of it. there are a lot of sticking points in this funding deal. yesterday we saw a fight on the senate side about daca. democrats very much want to get
this decided in december. republicans want to kick that out to january. so there is, i think, more concern probably today than there was yesterday that a shutdown is possible. the thing to watch is going to be that meeting on thursday between the congressional leadership and the president, assuming this one, unlike the last one, goes off without a hitch. >> no kidding on that. on the lunch today, where do you -- i spoke with a white house official just right before the show who said mark meadows, who is on the freedom caucus, was over at the white house this morning. meadows' spokesperson confirms he was at the white house, apparently not talking about taxes or this deal to avoid a shutdown, but instead talking daca, other policy matters. how close are you getting of signs of this deal wrapping up soon? >> reporter: no, quite honestly, we're not. and that is the interesting thing here. there are still so many pieces moving around out here. look, mark meadows is certainly closer to the president
ideologically than paul ryan is, for example. and the president and mark meadows have seen each other as allies. they have gone back and forth on twitter, complimenting each other in the past. so they are trying to align themselves together here, it would seem like, or meadows is trying to get the white house to align with him. the freedom caucus has a lot of poour here. if democrats decide to withhold votes on any of the deals, if the freedom caucus decides not to vote with the speaker, it is hard to get anything through the house. so there's some political brinksmanship being play in the u.s. house. >> garrett, thank you. i want to talk about that with our next guest, david huff, former speaker of the house. speaking of paul ryan, we have been showing a split screen, the news conference with house leadership has begun. and there's a lot for paul ryan to speak about. there's steve scalise. we are going to jump in when paul ryan begins to take questions. if i interrupt you, forgive me. dean, let me pick up where garrett left off and i want to talk about the activities over
the last 18 hours as demonstrated to you. is the house leaders control over the members tenuous at this point? >> this is no different from the way it's been for the last two or three years. and especially -- >> you know this in your interactions with paul ryan. >> i've had a chance to deal with this for myself. >> is it deja vu watching what is happening? >> every situation is a little different, but there's a lot of thing that is this brings back. but especially when talking about spending and the spending situation where you've got both domestic spending and military spending tied together. right now we've got ships running into each other in the pacific ocean. we don't have the type of missile defense we need against north korea. those are things which will take months to solve. do you have to match every dollar, dollar for dollar for that reason? that's why they have to work through some of this. and that is part of the problem, but with spending, you are back in the same situation. if you look at taxes it is different. there's a lot of effort going
together to put a tax bill together. i think they get something done and done before christmas. >> mitch mcconnell, speaking of spending, talking about a shutdown, he says a shutdown won't happen. as garrett points out, we don't know how the talks go until chuck, mitch and paul head to the white house on thursday. that is the day before the funding is set to run out. are you as confident as mitch mcconnell that on friday we won't be talking about a shutdown? >> there are a lot of ways to get to avoiding a shutdown. obviously, this has problems for republicans, my understanding of what they talked about last night between the white house and congressman meadows and the house freedom caucus was taking it up until after christmas, maybe until the 30th of december. you can always do a day, two, three days. those are things that you can probably get done just by turning over. if you can't get that done, there's a real problem. but that would be a problem on the democrats side as opposed to the republican side. >> i want to bring you in on this new york times getting some documents basically that show a
push by republican lawmakers to discredit the joint committee on taxation. do you have a problem as somebody who has been on the hill and worked very closely with speaker ryan, do you have a push to discredit the nonpartisan issue, is that a problem for you? >> no, i have spent a lot of time on the hill. >> why not? what is left if we are not looking at the nonbipartisan agencies -- >> i have a long history on this. i worked for jack kemp in the 1980s. we spent a lot of time working on the joint committee of taxation because they didn't understand one thing that kemp was doing. they didn't understand what kemp and bradley were trying to do or reagan was trying to do in those times. it is a group of people who work very hard and put things together, but they have a mindset. and that mindset is very different from the other mindset. >> doesn't this speak to a broader issue, because i have sat in conversations where people try to discredit cbo scores, this year, the republicans tried tooed that when it didn't put the purposes
they wanted. isn't it hypocritical to say they are not effective, that they are, in fact, partisan when at other times you use numbers to back it up? >> first of all, you have to use their numbers. the law says you have to use their numbers. right or wrong, like them, don't like them, you have to use them. >> talking about discrediting the agency -- >> there are people there with personal opinions of what they think should happen or will happen on health care. those opinions differ on -- >> but they work for nonpartisan agency, right? i mean, every human being in this world has -- >> i understand that, but if that opinion comes down to a very different way of thinking of how the law will work itself out in the areas where it goes more into your opinion than the facts, then you have an argument you aught to be able to make. and frankly, this is an issue that's gone on between republicans and sometimes democrats have done it since the cbo was create in the 1970s. >> what does this say, julie, about the norms of politics these days and the way politics exists? nothing is sacred, it sounds
like. >> well, i think that is right. nothing is sacred. there's kind of at this point so many voices and so many ways to voice your opinion on things that you're creating, like, different realities depending on your beliefs. >>. what are american people supposed to look at to believe? if everything is seen through a partisan lens, nothing is nonpartisan, right? isn't this a broader issue? >> i think it is. in this context, nothing is sacred when you are so eager to get something done as republicans are. >> so who do american people look to? >> there's no clear arbitor to look to. >> but that is a huge problem. >> on the issue of the tax plan, there are various nonpartisan analyses that show this will add a trillion dollars in red ink after ten years after accounting for economic growth. the tax foundation finds half a trillion in red ink, the republican leaders say there's no red ink. it doesn't square up with the facts or the analysis, even the
conservative analysis. >> but the most -- the best model out there, the one that does the most looking internationally, is the model that takes international capital forward. that says they will be much closer or able to balance it. >> but there are other models that don't show that. >> i understand that. they are not as deliberate or involved. >> you say some people say this is char cherry picking. >> what is going to happen if the u.s. lowers the corporate tax code to international falls? you don't take that into account in the way it needs to be, which the model does, then you may be missing a huge piece of what is going to happen to the economy worldwide. >> i want to pause this for one second because we have been showing on the screen here a guy that you used to work with closely, house speaker paul ryan, getting ready to take some questions. we'll get ready to listen in. >> caller: i was wondering if that is still accurate and if congress is going to continue to
work on this. >> that's the way it will continue to go. we continue to have discussions about the best way forward. we think health care is deteriorating and premiums are going through the roof. insurers are pulling out and that is not a status quo we can live with. juan? [ inaudible ] i feel like we'll have a majority and 218 for passing this week. we are having a good conversation with our members about exactly how to do this. we are having a good conversation with our members about timing and date and tactics and all the rest. the point is we are having the family discussion we need to have to proceed with a majority and i'm confident we'll have that. yeah. >> reporter: on the senate tax bill, it talks about the red ink -- >> do you think i'm going into the back and forth of this stuff. i'm not going to -- let them
wrestle with this. i'm not going into the it i knit-picking. can you give me a conference question? >> reporter: did you explicitly say you support the congress -- >> we are having a discussion and you'll see when we bring the bill to the floor. thank you. >> house speaker paul ryan taking some questions from reporters in the room for the weekly news conference. nothing on john conyers. he talked about the family discussion they are having broadly when it comes to some of the issues as we have been talking about that congress needs to work out, including funding the government. he sounded confident that is going to happen. >> he did sound confident and i think that confidence ultimately depends on whether departments decide to play hardball or not. it is not clear that republicans can produce 218 within their own rank. >> he thinks they can. >> he said he'll get to 218 but
didn't say it will be republicans. if democrats decide that they're going to hold the line on three priorities that they want, obamacare, stabilization, alexander murray, the extension of the health insurance program that expired a few months ago, and a daca fix. if democrats decide to hold the line on one, two or all three of the things, this could be a real problem. in the senate, they need eight democrats to get through a filibuster on this. so it won't be just republicans to pull this off on themselves. >> it's been a news avalanche this morning but i'm going to dump another one on you. the supreme court is in the headlines and now there's action on a very big case. we'll come back to talk about one of those, dealing with the design of wedding cakes. and it could have serious, serious implications for anti-discrimination laws across the country. we're having a live report after the break. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill
for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. ancestrydna can pinpoint where your ancestors are from... and the paths they took to a new home. could their journey inspire yours? order your kit at ancestrydna.com
so how old do you want uhh, i was thinking around 70. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade.
so as we speak, the supreme court is hearing arguments right now to decide whether a business can discriminate against customers based on religious grounds. the bakery owner out in denver, colorado, this guy jack phillips is a christian. he argues he has a right to bake a custkucustom wedding cake for same-sex couples. he refused to make a cake for a couple. danny cevallos is joining us here for more on this. this is a case really about the first amendment. free speech, freedom of religion. explain. >> the first amendment contains
no less than five rights. it's an amazing piece of the constitution and the bill of rights. two of those is the freedom of free speech. and of course the free exercise clause which protects our right to practice whatever religion we want. and you see it right there. several rights contained in there. but you see the language prohibiting the free exercise of religion. and abridging the freedom of speech. the cake maker in this case is saying the first amendment and his free expression of religion and his free speech rights are violated when he's compelled to create a cake with what he believes is a specific message. on the other hand, the couple and the state of colorado argue that colorado's antidiscrimination law compels him only to provide a service or to create a product. and not to actually speak or it's not compelled speech in the sense of the constitution.
>> so what are the arguments now for and against phillips, the bakery owner? >> creating the cake is speech. and it's also compelled speech in violation of the free exercise clause. forcing him to take a position adverse to his own religious beliefs. if you're the state of colorado or the couple, the argument is simple. this is not speech. if it is speech, it's the speech of the couple buying the cake. and not the cake maker who put this fondant and the icing on the cake. he's only providing a service so there's no need to discuss his free speech right. >> timeline for this to my understanding, the arguments are happening now. when could we see some kind of a decision? >> it's hard to say. it's always hard to say. unlike the travel ban which is going to be moved with some expediency, this is something that's just going to take its time in the supreme court. >> while i have you, while we're talking supreme court.
let's talk this new travel ban decision that has come down that the white house frankly sees as a win for them. essentially this new order temporarily lets enforcement of restricted travel rules for foreign nationals, chad, iran, libya, somalia, yemen. what's interesting to me and i've heard pete williams talk about this as well as he's been reporting on this. only two of the justices said those lower court injunctions should stay. is that a case of how they'll rule on the merits here? >> definitely. you can take that as a forecast of where the justices will go. the two justices, i believe, are ginsburg and sotomayor. and they apine they would not have gone that direction. you know, this case is confusing procedurally. but substantively, it's whether the travel ban is constitutional or violates federal law. what we're all trying to unravel and the supreme court attempted to give some uniformity to is the -- all these lower court
stays and then the staying of the stay and the net result is that the supreme court has given us sort of an even order which is that the travel ban can go into effect despite the lower court's rulings until this case winds its way through the supreme court. which notably added not too subtle hint that the supreme court expects it to be done as quickly as possible. >> yeah. danny, thank you very much for coming on and talking us through all of that. i appreciate it. we'll check back in with updates from the supreme court later on on this network. also thank you to you for hanging out this hour. we'll be right back with today's big picture. your joints... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement
before i hadburning,oting, of diabetic nerve pain, these feet... loved every step of fatherhood... and made old cars good as new. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem
for today's big picture, we're headed to the middle east for an important story that might not be on your radar but should be. look at this. you'll see a militant celebrating after yemen's former president was killed this week. why is this so significant? he was president for 33 years. a strong man, he's been a key player in the brutal civil war for the last three years. his death might lead to more chaos in a country already full of it. a lot of people around the world are watching very closely what's going on there. including the photographer here for reuters. we'd love to hear your thoughts on facebook, twitter, snapchat, instagram. heading over to the white house for now. i'll see you this afternoon probably with you ali velshi. >> you are going to be at a
white house press briefing this afternoon. we'll check in with you later. have a great rest of your day. good morning, everyone. i'm ali velshi. >> and i'm stephanie ruhle. it is tuesday, december 5th. let's get started. >> special counsel robert mueller has asked germany's largest bank, deutsche bank, to share information on accounts held by donald trump and his family. >> there's been long suspiciouses about this. they lent money to him. >> trump's saying that's crossing a line. he said that's a red line. >> more fallout this morning over the president's controversial tweet about mike flynn. and whether it could be construed as evidence of obstruction of evidence. >> there seems to be a growing rift within the president's legal team. mr. trump's personal lawyer john dowd saying he authorized the president's tweet insisting it's ignorant and arrogant to admit it showed obstruction. dowd going further saying